Protecting Democracy

The intent of the spreadsheet  Protecting Democracy Data is to systematically document verifiable U.S. events that strengthened or protected democratic governance.

It serves as a research and tracking dataset, that is recording judicial, legislative, and institutional actions that reinforce democratic norms. Particularly checks on executive power, protection of electoral integrity, and transparency measures.

Specifically, the entries show:

Federal court injunctions against  administration orders that threatened election integrity (citizenship verification mandates, mail-ballot limits, National Guard deployments).

Legislative reforms like reintroduction of the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act.

Transparency rulings supporting data-use disclosure laws (e.g., New York’s Algorithmic Pricing Disclosure Act).

Each row includes date, category, actors, jurisdiction, event summary, citation, evidence type, direct quote, venue, legal outcome, severity,  points gained, and impact summary. It shows an empirical, nonpartisan framework for measuring democratic resilience and rule-of-law enforcement actions.

Severity measures the magnitude or strength of democratic impact. It attempts to show  how consequential the event was in checking authoritarian overreach or restoring democratic norms.

In practice:

High:  Major structural or legal impact (e.g., nationwide injunctions, landmark judicial checks, major legislative reform).

Medium: Moderate but tangible institutional impact (e.g., temporary restraining orders, state-level precedent, new transparency rules).

Low: Symbolic or limited effect (e.g., bill introductions, nonbinding statements, advocacy actions).

The 1–6 Points Gained scale corresponds to a numerical scoring system used to quantify each event’s impact on democratic resilience — essentially a points-based index tied to the qualitative  severity rating.

Points Gained Interpretation:

1. Very Low: Minimal or symbolic reinforcement of norms; limited scope or follow-through. Statement of intent, minor administrative reform.

2. Low: Some positive signal or advocacy effort without immediate institutional effect. Bill introduced, not yet passed.

3. Moderate:   Concrete but localized or temporary democratic safeguard. State court injunction, limited jurisdiction.

4. Medium: Federal-level check or new transparency measure with measurable impact. Federal court TRO, upheld disclosure rule.

5. High: Substantial nationwide or systemic defense of norms. Major federal injunction blocking executive overreach.

6. Very High: Landmark or precedent-setting institutional reform. Enactment of national democratic protections or Supreme Court decision affirming constitutional guardrails.

The Impact Summary column serves as a concise analytic synthesis — it explains why and how each event contributes to democratic restoration or institutional resilience.

Its intent is to bridge fact and interpretation within the dataset’s factual boundaries. Specifically, it:

• Summarizes institutional significance – Explains the practical effect of the event.

• Places the action in context – Connects it to prior cases, laws, or norms .

• Assesses scope and durability – Distinguishes between short-term relief .

• Avoids partisanship – Frames impact in terms of democratic function rather than political advantage.

Essentially, the Impact Summary translates the event’s raw outcome into its democratic meaning—evaluating its contribution to the rule of law, electoral integrity, or institutional balance.

Overview

Democracy rarely collapses in a single dramatic moment. More often, it erodes through shortcuts, overlooked abuses, and cultural shifts that weaken institutions over time. Protecting Democracy intends to document recurring failure modes at every scale, from procedural breakdowns in meetings, to cultural and structural shifts that hollow out institutions, to systemic distortions that reshape governance itself.

Erosion is incremental. Small breaches tolerated once, then excused as “normal” the next time, accumulate into lasting damage. 

Recognizing these failure modes early is the first step toward resilience.

Democracy erodes step by step, but it can also be renewed. Resilient systems thrive when rules are applied fairly, oversight remains independent, and citizens stay engaged. Protecting Democracy means reinforcing guardrails, correcting small breaches before they spread, and fostering a culture where both participation and dissent are valued.

How to Use This Resource

As a field guide: Each entry defines a failure mode, explains why it matters, and highlights warning signs.

As a diagnostic tool: Compare patterns against your own experience to identify vulnerabilities in your institution.

As a source for reform: Each entry offers countermeasures—practical steps to strengthen transparency, fairness, resilience, and accountability.

As a resource: The resources page links to trusted organizations that monitor democratic erosion worldwide, providing real-time data, analysis, and examples of emerging risks.